The GOP has lost their minds.....49% believe ACORN stole the election for Obama!

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The plan is to cut social programs. Until they cut the bloated military budget, their plan is lip service for us and more money for them.

On the surface cutting the military budget sounds like a good idea. It isn't. Let me simplify it.

Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military reduces personnel -> Former military people need jobs, there are none -> Unemployment rate goes up -> Government spending goes up

And part 2 of that reduction in military spending...

Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military buys less equipment -> Military supply contractors have less demand for product -> Military supply contractors lay off workers -> Unemployment goes up -> Government spending goes up

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

On the surface cutting the military budget sounds like a good idea. It isn't. Let me simplify it.

Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military reduces personnel -> Former military people need jobs, there are none -> Unemployment rate goes up -> Government spending goes up

And part 2 of that reduction in military spending...

Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military buys less equipment -> Military supply contractors have less demand for product -> Military supply contractors lay off workers -> Unemployment goes up -> Government spending goes up

So what do you suggest Duane? Let the military which is an agency of the gov't continue to spend freely and keep running us in the ground?

I suggest that we keep paying the people who are working and find a way to get the pople who are not working in a job. Cutting spending that results in less people working so that we can protect funding that goes into the pockets of people who are not working is just plain stupid.

New jobs + more people working = increased tax revenue
Cutting spending that results in less jobs = increased burden on social welfare programs

This isn't rocket science.

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

On the surface cutting the military budget sounds like a good idea. It isn't. Let me simplify it.Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military reduces personnel -> Former military people need jobs, there are none -> Unemployment rate goes up -> Government spending goes upAnd part 2 of that reduction in military spending...Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military buys less equipment -> Military supply contractors have less demand for product -> Military supply contractors lay off workers -> Unemployment goes up -> Government spending goes up

Let me paint a pitcture.Government cuts funding to entitlement programs. Person ell lose jobs. Less people working these programs makes it easier to scam them. More money is lost to people who don't need it. It gets cut further as a result and starts all over. Before you know it there are zero social programs and the nation falls over a completely different cliff.You can play this game on both sides. The fact is everything needs cuts and revisions. You can't say you need to cut entitlements but leave the military, which contains a very large portion of your wasted spending, any more than your can say cut the military and leave entitlements, which contain a large portion of your wasted spending. It's partisan and stupid either way.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

Let me paint a pitcture.Government cuts funding to entitlement programs. Person ell lose jobs. Less people working these programs makes it easier to scam them. More money is lost to people who don't need it. It gets cut further as a result and starts all over. Before you know it there are zero social programs and the nation falls over a completely different cliff.You can play this game on both sides. The fact is everything needs cuts and revisions. You can't say you need to cut entitlements but leave the military, which contains a very large portion of your wasted spending, any more than your can say cut the military and leave entitlements, which contain a large portion of your wasted spending. It's partisan and stupid either way.

The fallacy in your theory is that there will never be zero entitlement programs. Things like PreK and Headstart, free and reduced school lunches, Medicare/Medicaid, HUD and foodstamps will always be funded. Period.

Consider this. If they cut military AND entitlement spending by 10% each, the military spending will be back to what it was before Obama took office and entitlement spending will still be 9% higher than it was before Obama took office.

Furthermore, Obama & Co. are proclaiming that as many as or more Americans are working now than when Obama took office. Why shouldn't entitlement spending be cut? It increased to handle the extra load of the high unemployment rate of the last 4 years. Now that those people are back to work why shouldn't spending in that area decline to what it was in 2008?

Hidden ContentHidden Content"Amidst the uncertainties of war, every soldier is entitled to one certainty...that he will not be forgotten.
Poor is the nation that has no heroes, shameful is the one that, having them...forgets."

The fallacy in your theory is that there will never be zero entitlement programs. Things like PreK and Headstart, free and reduced school lunches, Medicare/Medicaid, HUD and foodstamps will always be funded. Period.Consider this. If they cut military AND entitlement spending by 10% each, the military spending will be back to what it was before Obama took office and entitlement spending will still be 9% higher than it was before Obama took office.Furthermore, Obama & Co. are proclaiming that as many as or more Americans are working now than when Obama took office. Why shouldn't entitlement spending be cut? It increased to handle the extra load of the high unemployment rate of the last 4 years. Now that those people are back to work why shouldn't spending in that area decline to what it was in 2008?

I say entitlements should be revised and cut. You're trying to keep your military bloated and wasteful. Being that you're more conservative and I'm more liberal who, in this case, isn't willing to deal and is that indicative of how talks are going in Washington.

Patiently waiting for someone to bring back sax solos and keytars non ironically.

On the surface cutting the military budget sounds like a good idea. It isn't. Let me simplify it.

Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military reduces personnel -> Former military people need jobs, there are none -> Unemployment rate goes up -> Government spending goes up

And part 2 of that reduction in military spending...

Government cuts military budget -> Military has less money to spend -> Military buys less equipment -> Military supply contractors have less demand for product -> Military supply contractors lay off workers -> Unemployment goes up -> Government spending goes up

So you borrow more money for the SS trust and build more weapons ....yeah thats the answer!

I suggest that we keep paying the people who are working and find a way to get the pople who are not working in a job. Cutting spending that results in less people working so that we can protect funding that goes into the pockets of people who are not working is just plain stupid.

New jobs + more people working = increased tax revenue
Cutting spending that results in less jobs = increased burden on social welfare programs

This isn't rocket science.

Duane, it doesn't matter where you cut the money from. All cuts cost jobs. Spending cuts will be painful in the short-term, but it's just something we have to trudge through.

I disagree, all cuts do not have to cut jobs. lowering government pay, pensions, and benefits will not cut jobs. cutting non military payroll will not cut jobs, cutting UEC benefits will not cut jobs, cutting welfare will not cut jobs. we don't need to cut the workers from these groups just the people who are receiving benefits that do not need to.